Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Clause 74

Academy arrangements

Amendment proposed (this day): 24, in clause 74, page 45, line 25, after State, insert
, subject to the agreement of the relevant Academy..(Mr. Gibb.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Christopher Chope: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 26, in clause 74, page 45, line 29, at end insert
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) Academy arrangements require the YPLA to support the objective of the autonomy of Academies wherever it is reasonable to do so..
Amendment 339, in clause 74, page 45, line 29, at end insert
(2A) In exercising the functions in subsection (2), the YPLA must allow academies a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in circumstances where the governing body of an academy believes that a decision taken by the YPLA is unreasonable in the circumstances..
Amendment 391, in clause 74, page 45, line 35, at end insert
but excluding the power conferred on the Secretary of State by section 482(1) of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (Academies)..
Amendment 392, in clause 74, page 45, line 38, leave out paragraph (a) and insert
(a) an agreement entered into by him under section 482 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (Academies);.
Amendment 25, in clause 74, page 45, line 39, after section, insert
, except any functions related to the monitoring and assessment of school performance.

Jim Knight: There are clearly one or two Committee members who had an overexcited lunch, while others are still finishing off.
I was giving some general comments on the debate that we have had. I shall resist the temptation to respond to all the points, because I fear that that would take a disproportionate amount of Committee time. I shall seek to address the amendments that we are debating in this section.
There are a few things to say on the stand part element of the debate. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, as I predicted, wants to quote from the my letter from Mike Butler, and I would not want to disappoint him in his prediction by not quoting back to him the letter that I received previously from Ros McMullen, when she was the chair of the Independent Academies Association:
The IAA welcome the plans to establish the YPLA and its proposed role in the administration and support of open academies. It has been clear that the growth of this transformational and successful programme requires an agency to deal with the increasing administration. We are especially pleased that this proposition will allow Academies to continue to receive all their funding directly from a single, national agency
as opposed to local authorities, as the hon. Member for Yeovil would like.
We have been discussing these issues with ministers for some time, and fully support these proposals.
I refute the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that there is little or no support for this move within the academies movement. Indeed, it is worth reiterating what Daniel Moynihan said in the evidence sessions, in response to the hon. Member for Basingstoke:
It makes sense for the Department to have an agency to take care of academies. Clearly the Department was never meant to be a local authority, so we are perfectly happy with that and we think it will work well.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke then asked:
Are you happy that academies will be administered by the YPLA at a regional level?
Elizabeth Reid, from the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, said in response:
It makes absolute sense and, as the academies programme continues to grow, it would be anomalous and unusual for a Department of State to take direct responsibility for a very large number of schools when there are other models, both past and present, available to look at. The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust views that as a sensible provision.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 43-44, Q107 and 109.]
There are many other quotes that I could use, but I shall not detain the Committee.

David Laws: The Minister quoted Liz Reid, but perhaps he could also refer to her evidence on question 125. She was asked about the alternative of having academies under the strategic accountability of local government. All she said in answer to that was:
There are others you would have to ask. It would depend on the nature of the legislation that could be crafted and considered by the House.
Do I take it from that, that the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust envisages that it would be possible to craft legislation that would deal properly with those concerns?

Jim Knight: I could not speak for the SSAT, but it is worth looking further on in column 48, at what happened immediately after that answer from Elizabeth Reid. The hon. Member for Yeovil asked:
You are being very diplomatic. Perhaps it is time for me to bring on Dan. Is that okay?
Daniel Moynihan then said:
I am sorry. I am not a politician and I am not good at being diplomatic. My answer would be that local authorities have called in academy sponsors[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 48, Q125.],
going on to say what I quoted this morning. He clearly put the view that he thought that academies would not support the move talked about.

David Laws: I am still unclear whether the reason that the Government have not been willing to put academies under LA oversight is that they believe that they are not capable of performance managing academies or that they fear local government would seek to suck the autonomy of academies away. Which of the two is it?

Jim Knight: Both could be true. Liz was right that it depends on the precise proposition, but my strongly held view is that we should not disrupt the current academies model. Suffice to say that some of the functions performed by the Department should be carried out on an agency basis, by an arms length body and in accordance with the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the intention of which was to distance the delivery from the commissioning of services, which is what we seek to do with this legislation.
I want to deal with the point about the role of Ofsted and the YPLA performance management proposals. When the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton thinks about it, he will accept the importance of the softer, earlier intelligence that comes from a regional capacity, which will allow us to intervene earlier before problems become significant. I do not want to dwell overly on the significant problems that arose early this year at the Richard Rose academy in Cumbria. I pay tribute to the leadership of Mike Gibbons, who has taken over as chief executive of the two academies, and to the sponsors, who helped to resolve the issues. However, that situation had been allowed to get out of control, before we made the necessary interventions. It was thanks only to the procedures that we introducedallowing parents to complain directly to Ofstedthat Ofsted could properly identify the problems at the school in Carlisle.
I want the YPLA to provide the Department with intelligence about problems and be able to act much earlier itself. The hon. Gentleman has allowed ideology to take over his undoubted common sense. Once he allows his common sense to be heard, he will agree that the arrangement is sensible, and, of course, it will not get in the way of the current arrangements, under which, one year after the opening of an academy, Ofsted will carry out a monitoring visit, and three years later a full section 5 inspection. We are not introducing a second form of inspectionit is simply a relationship on the ground to provide proper support before problems become serious. We will work with academy sponsors and leaders to ensure that every single academy is a success.
On amendment 24, it will help to explain the effect of clause 74, which gives the Secretary of State the power to require the YPLA to act as his agent and to carry out academies functions. It is important to understand that we are talking about an agency role and that, in that regard, we are preserving academies autonomy. We are not moving powers away from the Secretary of State, but stating that certain functions can be carried out on an agency basis. As the programme expands, it is right, as I and others have said, that open academies continue to be supported and that their performance be monitored, owing to the challenging circumstances in which they operate. The Department finds it increasingly difficult to deliver that level of individualised support, which is why we want the delegation. The YPLA will be able to offer the necessary support, and academies will benefit from its regionalised structure. The routine functions currently carried out by staff in my Department, such as calculating and paying grants, will be undertaken by the YPLA on the Secretary of States behalf. In addition, the YPLA will oversee academy improvement through academy school improvement partners.

David Laws: Will the Minister clarify the number of regional offices? Where will the one in the south west be based?

Jim Knight: We are currently working on aspects of that. I would expect the regional structure to be coterminous with the Government office regions, but if the position is any different, I will let the Committee know. I do not know whether the detail of where functions will be based in the regions has been agreed in the negotiations, but if I get that information, I will certainly send it to the hon. Gentleman and copy in the rest of the Committee.
If we allowed each academy to chose whether to participate in the proposed arrangements, as amendment 24 suggests, the YPLA would potentially carry out functions for only some academies. The Department would continue to carry out the same functions as it does now for academies that did not agree to the new arrangements. There would therefore be significant duplication of roles and functions, significant inefficiences, significant inconsistencies and increased costs. I would therefore strongly resist the proposition that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton puts forward in his amendment.
The YPLA will also be able to provide more responsive regionally based support to academiessomething that the Department is unable to do at the moment and is unlikely to be able to offer in the future. The YPLA can provide better local knowledge, additional local support can be delivered more quickly to prevent crises, and a more personalised service can be offered to meet the needs of individual academies.
On amendment 25, the Secretary of State will retain responsibility for the regulatory framework for all academies and will continue to take key decisions about individual academies on issues such as terminating the funding agreement, appointing additional members to the governing body and developing the academys policy.
On amendment 26, the Committee will be aware that one reason why academies have flexibility and independence is that they are regulated for the most part via their funding agreements. The powers in the Bill will not change the content of those agreements and will not entitle the YPLA to impose new duties on academies. Nor will it change the fundamental principle that sponsors provide direction and leadership for the academy.
The Secretary of State and his officials will, of course, have a close working relationship with the YPLA, which will be required to exercise its academy functions in accordance with arrangements set down by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will provide the YPLA with guidance on the delivery of academy functions. Reporting arrangements will ensure that there is regular communication and accountability.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton of course questioned whether the YPLA was the right organisation to do the work; indeed, he proposed setting up a completely separate organisation to do it. We must ensure that any academy functions are carried out in a cost-effective way. It is intended that routine academy functions carried out by the YPLA will deliver cost savings, as the use of YPLA resources will, for example, reduce staff costs and prevent unnecessary duplication of back-office functions. The agencys internal structure, with the main office responsible for finance functions and regional offices responsible for the improved delivery of performance management functions, means that those cost savings can be achieved.
The YPLA will calculate and make payments of grants, supervise and ensure financial control of budgets, and monitor and enforce the funding agreement. That fits with its main remit of funding education and training places for 16 to 19-year-olds. A large number of the officials who transfer their employment to the YPLA will carry out the same funding functions in respect of academies that they currently perform in the Department. There is therefore a good fit in terms of the bulk of what the YPLA will do in respect of academies.

David Laws: Why would the Government not consider allowing other schools to opt into the YPLA and out of local authority oversight?

Jim Knight: My view on such a transfer is that the academies intervention is a particular sort of intervention. It is intended to deal with circumstances in which we need to achieve a more rigorous form of government, as well as a particular form of accountability through the funding agreement, which we know has worked for academies. Other schoolsfrom trust schools to voluntary assisted schools through to community schoolsremain part of the local authority family, and it is right that they should do so. I have no proposals to alter that arrangement. Schools that are independent of local authorities will be academies, except for the few CTCs that are left.
Amendment 339 would affect the proposals in the clause. Under the clause, the YPLA will not have the power to impose new duties on academies. It will have only the Secretary of States existing powers that he asks it to exercise on his behalf. As I said, it is an agency arrangement. If an academy takes the view that the YPLA is acting unreasonably in carrying out those functions, it can complain to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will investigate any such complaint to ensure that the YPLA is carrying out those functions on his behalf in a reasonable manner.
The agency arrangement does not change the current situation. If an academy complains that officials are behaving unreasonably, the Secretary of State will investigate the matter whether the officials are in the Department or an agency. The new arrangement will not reduce the legal remedies available to academies. If an academy is unhappy with the way it is being treated by the agency on the Secretary of States behalf, it will have all the potential legal remedies it needs. For example, it might think that the agency is breaching the terms of the funding agreement by failing to pay grant or that it is failing to comply with the general principles of public law.
Amendments 391 and 392 would work together to ensure that the YPLA could not enter into a funding agreement with an academy on behalf of the Secretary of State. The clause gives the YPLA the power to do that if required to do so by the Secretary of State. However, I confirm that we have no intention of requiring the YPLA to enter into funding agreements with academies. As I have said, under the new arrangements the Secretary of State will continue to carry out those functions. These proposals will mean that the way in which the Secretary of State and the YPLA work together can be flexible. We will be able to move to a lighter-touch approach if in the light of experience that seems appropriate to the Secretary of State and, crucially, to academies.
Even if we did want funding agreements to be negotiated by the YPLA in the future, by law the contracting party would still be the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State and the Department will take an active interest in any funding agreements for the setting up of academies. The idea that the YPLA could enter into funding agreements unravels as a serious proposition because it simply acts as an agent in respect of academies functions.

David Laws: That may be the Ministers intention, but surely there is nothing in the Bill to stop the YPLA entering into such agreements without the Secretary of States agreement.

Jim Knight: My understanding is that the only academy funding agreement that can be undertaken is the one between the Secretary of State and the academy sponsor. It is therefore not possible for the YPLA to enter into such an agreement. I assure the Committee that we do not intend for there to be any reduction in the autonomy of academies through these provisions. These are simply more practical arrangements that will allow the planned expansion of the academies programme. For those reasons, I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on amendments 391 and 392. I am a little confused about the Governments position on this matter. I need to reflect on the Ministers words on paper.
The Minister seemed to indicate that although the Governments intention is to not confer on the YPLA the power to enter into academy funding agreements, that power is in the Bill. He is relying on the assumption that the YPLA will not be willing to do something that the Secretary of State disagrees with, but his other comments indicated that at some point the Governments attitude might change on the degree to which these powers should be devolved to the YPLA. That set off alarm bells in my mind about how much openness there is here.
I will go away and reflect on these matters and perhaps speak to the Minister and his officials to ensure that I understand their intention and the reality. Perhaps if I am not satisfied, I can bring back amendments at a later stage.
However, I will, with your permission, Mr. Chope, want to press clause 74 as a whole to a Division later, because I remain unconvinced by the reasons that the Minister has given for placing the academy programme under the YPLA. I am left with the suspicion that the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough hit on the reasons for the Governments decision when he questioned the Minister on the matter during our evidence session on 10 March and the Minister replied:
We would have given in to the charge of watering down the independence of academies if we had handed over their performance management and funding to local authorities.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2009; c. 173, Q411.]
My impression from that statement is that the Government were nervous about being seen to be compromising the independence of the academies programme.
When we have questioned the Minister further, he has given, under some pressure and encouragement from me, some more serious reasons why the Government might want to put the academies programme under the YPLA. The two points that under some pressure he acknowledged he has concerns about are, first, the performance management of academies and, secondly, the possibility that local authorities might seek to suck back some of the autonomy that has been granted to academies because of their concern somehow to be controlling those schools. We have made it clear that we see local authorities as having a commissioning and strategic role, not a role in running the individual schools.
The second reason that the Minister gave is entirely unconvincing, because there is no reason why the Government could not place in legislation a protection for academies in respect of the freedoms that they currently enjoy, which the Government granted them. Some of them, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, have been rather rolled back on over the past couple of years. There is no reason why the Government could not also give a power of appeal, for example, to the schools commissioner to ensure that if academies were concerned about the activities of their local authority, they could appeal to the schools commissioner to ensure that their independence and autonomy was not compromised.
The other reason that the Minister gave, under some pressure and encouragement, was that he did not think that all local authorities could be trusted to performance manage academies. He said that that was one of the two concerns. Under further questioning, he said lateror perhaps it was as part of his speechthat a more rigorous form of government or governance was needed for academies. That is very surprising, because even today, with the expansion of the academies programme, the majority of the 23,500 schools in the country are under the performance management and strategic control of local authorities.
If the Government are really so concerned that a serious number of local authorities are not doing their job properly, one wonders why they should be given the strategic oversight of performance for all those other schools, including a very large number of schools whose performance is just as poor as that of some of the academies that the Government are now placing under the YPLA. If the Government are really so concerned about the inadequate performance management by local authorities, I do not see why the Government or perhaps even the Conservatives are not proposing the logical outcome of that concern and that process, which is to allow schools that are not impressed with their local authority to opt out of the local authority control and move under YPLA control. If the YPLA will provide such a rigorous form of governance and will be so much better at performance management, why on earth will it not be controlling the performance management of the majority of schools?
Why do the Government not draw the obvious conclusion from the concerns that they appear to have about the performance management of some local authorities, which is that they should be addressing that more vigorously and should be ensuring that the systems of inspection hold more transparently and vigorously to account those local authorities that are not performing well? A local authority that is failing its local school that has become an academy is likely to be failing other schools.
I asked the Minister where the oversight of academies would be in the south-west and he has kindly undertaken to let me know later where that will be from. However, I think that the impression was that there will be one headquarters to cover the entire south-west region. I do not know how many academies there are in the south-west at the moment, but there are probably not all that many. For example, I think that one academy, to which the Minister referred earlier, is just about to be established in Somerset.
It seems extraordinary that we are going to put in place an extra level of bureaucracy that will operate out of one centre in a huge region covering hundreds and thousands of square miles, and that such a system is expected to do a better and more efficient job at performance managing those schools than the local authorities that are on the spot and are aware of the local circumstances. For example, local authorities might pick up information from other schools to which parents might be taking their children if they are not happy with the school that is failing. It is possible and, indeed, necessary to have stronger performance management and oversight through the existing local authority system. If we are really not convinced that that is working at all, we would be far better getting rid of that tier altogether and allowing schools to opt in to some kind of YPLAan idea that the Conservatives occasionally toy with.
In respect of academies, the Government seem to have constructed the YPLA to meet the true concerns that they have, which was indicated by the Ministers comments to the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. Those comments gave the impression that the Ministers concern is about much more than transferring academy oversight to local authorities; it is that the Government would be perceived to be undermining the autonomy of academies and that programme. As a consequence, it is a great pity that an opportunity has been missed to place the academy programme under the strategic oversight of local authorities and, as part of that process, to ensure that the job that local authorities are doing in terms of performance management for all schools is much improved. For that reason, I will be seeking a Division on clause 74 as a whole later.

Nick Gibb: I listened carefully to the Ministers response, and I am afraid that I ended up even more confused than before. He mentioned quotes that I have heard before, he has heard before, he has read before, and I have read beforefor example, the quote from Dr. Moynihan, who said:
It makes sense for the Department to have an agency to take care of academies. Clearly the Department was never meant to be a local authority.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 43, Q107.]
We can both agree with that quote, but my honest assessment of the opinion of the academy movement is that it does not believe that the YPLA is the correct body to look after academies.
It was confusing that the Minister said that the YPLA has a useful regional structure, which makes me think that the 49 buildings plus the one in Coventry, which the LSC currently occupies at a cost of £26.1 million a year, are going to be maintained and not streamlined. That will spread the people who are managing the academies between those 49 buildings, which is not a terribly efficient way of managing them.

Jim Knight: From memory, I think that currently 22 officials will move over from the Department to the YPLA. Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea about how we might spread them across 46 offices?

Nick Gibb: I am reassured to hear that. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Yeovil says from a sedentary position, that is how it will start. The Minister said that the regional structure of the YPLA is a useful mechanism through which to conduct oversight of the academies, but, of course, it is the role of the federation of academies to look after academies in a regional or national way by selecting five, six, seven or ten academies within their federation to be monitored and nurtured. That is not the role of an expanding YPLA. If possible, I would like a Division on amendment 26, rather than on lead amendment 24. Amendment 26 enshrines in legislation that the objective of the YPLA is to maintain the autonomy of academies, which is an important principle.
I was also intrigued by what the Minister had to say about the powers of the Secretary of State who would maintain his power and duty to terminate funding agreements and appoint additional governors. It seems that the Department will maintain an oversight role to ensure that academies are performing well. That prompts me to ask what the YPLA will do if it does not inspect schools or oversee them, because the power to tackle underperforming academies still rests with the Secretary of State.

Jim Knight: A good hint as to the sort of things that it would do was given by Daniel Moynihan in his evidence to the Committee. In response to my questions about the sort of issues on which he has a regular relationship with officials, he said that there is a fair amount of traffic, and went on to say:
Admissions, funding and clarification on funding models, legal issues relating to academies, local discussions with local authorities and the DCSFs role in arbitrating those discussions, so a very wide range of different issues.[Official Report, Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 45, Q112 and 113.]
Those are the sorts of things that our officials our working with academies on, on a day-to-day basis, that I would see the YPLA doing on our behalf.

Nick Gibb: I see that role being performed by federations of academies rather than by a Government agency.

David Laws: On the hon. Gentlemans point about federations and their role in performance management, what should happen with academies that are not part of a wider federation, or with federations that consist of only two academies? Would he be happy for a single academy to performance manage itself, or for federations of only two or three academies to do that job?

Nick Gibb: Again, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but these are early stages in the academy movement, and I do not believe that we will have single academies surviving out there, in the long run, and that they will end up forming federations. An important part of the academy movement is allowing parents to have real power and choice. That is concomitant with the effectiveness of the whole policy. The pressure to raise standards will come from parents having a genuine choice of schools or academies for their children. There is not genuine choice at the moment, because there are so few good schools, and it is difficult for new academies to enter the market because of restrictions, planning laws and so on, so there is not that pressure to perform. Once parents have that genuine choice, because surplus places are being maintained, and it is easy for new entrants to come into the system, the reputation of academy federations will be absolutely key, and they will be determined to maintain and enhance their reputation. Therein lies the source for raising standards in our schools.

David Laws: I share the hon. Gentlemans aspiration for more choice in the system and the potential to ratchet up standards as a consequence, but he will be aware of evidence that choice has not always proved to be a good vehicle for automatically increasing standards, particularly in less affluent areas. Surely, there will therefore need to be a mechanism of accountability that is stronger than simply having the choice mechanism?

Nick Gibb: We have not really had genuine choice in this country. In countries that do have genuine choice, such as Sweden, standards have risen considerably, both in the schools that have come into the system and in the existing municipality, so I believe that choice will have an effect. He is right that, ultimately, powers will have to reside somewhere to tackle academies or federation of academies that fail, and I think that they should rest in a newly established body. There is some confusion, which the Minister will clarify in a moment, about where those powers lie. Is it with the YPLA or with the Secretary of State, who has the ultimate powers to terminate funding agreements or to appoint additional governors. Those are the key powers that will be used to tackle poorly performing academies, leading to a rise in standards. If those powers rest with the Secretary of State, rather than the YPLA, the YPLA will be powerless to tackle underperformance.

Jim Knight: I was reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman because we want to make progress, but he has said something significant about his partys policy on moving towards all academies being part of wider federations and chains of schools. It is worth pointing out that Dan Moynihan, whom I have quoted, is the chief executive of one of our most successful partnerships. It is also worth pointing out that however successful the free schools in Sweden or the charter schools in the United States have been, this countrys education system still outperforms theirs in international comparisons. I thought that the hon. Gentlemans policy of parents being able to start schools would be that groups of parents could start them wherever they want, but he is now saying that they can do that only as long as they are part of a chain.

Nick Gibb: I was explaining that I thought academies would form federations. They would probably form federations with primary school academies to provide the back-office support and assistance that the schools need if they want to raise standards. I do not prescribe that that will happen, but I suspect that it would happen if there were more freedom and ease to set up academies to run autonomously.
I was reassured by what the Minister said about amendment 339 and that an appeal could be made to Secretary of State when an academy was dissatisfied with decisions by the YPLA. I, too, would like a Division to be held on clause stand part for slightly different reasons than those outlined by the hon. Member for Yeovil. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 26, in clause 74, page 45, line 29, at end insert
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) Academy arrangements require the YPLA to support the objective of the autonomy of Academies wherever it is reasonable to do so..(Mr. Gibb.)

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: 291, in clause 74, page 46, line 1, leave out this or any other and insert any.(Jim Knight.)

This technical drafting amendment is needed to achieve consistency in the provisions in the Bill that refer to the Bill itself in conjunction with other Acts.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Grants for purposes of Academy arrangements functions

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 75, page 46, line 18, at end insert
(e) require the YPLA to support the successful establishment of Academy sixth forms..
The amendment reflects the concern of academy principals and sponsors that the new arrangements for funding established under the Bill might result in discrimination against academies that want to establish sixth forms. In a letter to the Minister from the Independent Academies Association, Mike Butler, the chairman of the IAA, wrote:
Given the force of numbers likely to be brought to bear in many debates regarding post-16 commissioning, particularly where the commissioning power rests with groups of local authorities, and/or there is a strong FE sector contingent, there is genuine anxiety that academy sixth forms will lose out. Despite verbal assurances, there appears to be nothing in part 3, chapter 4 of the Bill that would suggest that the YPLA can safeguard an academys post-16 funding should local agreements be to its detriment.
He goes on to say that
the presumption for academy sixth forms is based on a sound rationale, namely that of raising student aspirations and being able to recruit the best teachers. New academy sixth forms need time to build up, and are critical to developing academic work throughout the academy, and thus to raising community aspirations and contributing to regeneration and community cohesion.
The amendment seeks to give legislative backing to those verbal assurances, by requiring the YPLA to support academies at which to establish sixth forms. That support should be forthcoming notwithstanding other sixth-form provision in the area. Choice and competition as a lever to force up standards can work only if new providers are given the freedom to establish schools, without restrictions based on the number of surplus places that already exist.
The areas with the most surplus places are where there is greatest need for new providers to establish the type and quality of education demanded by those very parents who are avoiding the schools with the spare capacity, whether that be sixth form or secondary education more generally. If the Minister believes in choice and diversity provision, he should have no problem in supporting the amendment.

Jim Knight: I shall speak briefly to amendment 27, as I have already made a similar point about an earlier amendment. I am sure that the Committee can refer back to what I said then for a fuller argument. I reassure the hon. Gentleman and others that the size of a proposed academy, and whether it should have a sixth form, will be decided long before it opens and while the Secretary of State retains direct involvement. Appropriate admission arrangements are determined to reflect that. After an academy is open, if there is disagreement locally about the number of places to be funded, the matter would be referred to the YPLA, which would act on behalf of the Secretary of State. The YPLA would reach any decisions on academy sixth-form places by having regard to the policy guidance provided by the Secretary of State. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I have listened carefully to the Minister. We have had these debates before and I suspect that we would not win a Division on this issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Academy arrangements: information sharing

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: The growing use of information-sharing clauses under the Government is always a cause of anxiety. I understand the Governments rationale. If they establish three or four quangos where there used to be just one, to avoid replicating the same information three or four times, they can pass a law that enables those quangos to send the data files that they hold to each other. The danger is not simply that those files could go missing in the postI cannot believe that would ever happenbut that through the clauses, new data-sharing powers are swept in. Personal data collected for a narrow, specific purpose could be shared with other statutory bodies for whom they were not intended. In the clause, exam or internal test data from students at an academy, or confidential notes regarding conversations between a student and a teacher, could be given to the Secretary of State, the YPLA or
any other person by or in respect of whom a relevant function is exercisable.
That is clause 76(3)(d).
It would be helpful for the Committee, and in due course for the Information Commissioner, if the Minister would spell out what information he has in mind, and what are the limits to the type of information that he envisages being shared among the four categories in subparagraph (3).
There may be instances when it is necessary for information to be shared between parties in order to effect the new arrangements, and we will debate information sharing more widely when we reach clause 119, from memory. We can go into more detail then, if that is the Committees desire.
Clause 76 enables the information to be shared between the Secretary of State, the YPLA, the academy and other relevant parties, including, typically, the local authority. That information will be subject to guidance that the Department will issue. Such information sharing might include management information on the application and impact of specific policiesfor example, exclusions or special educational needsthat the YPLA has referred to the Secretary of State. The information will be used to inform policy development.

Nick Gibb: Can I therefore be assured that that does not include any personal data relating to individuals?

Jim Knight: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman. There may be circumstances in which, for example, an individual in an academy, rather than carry on from year 11 to the sixth form, might want to secure learning somewhere else, so information about them would best be supplied to the YPLA as part of the commissioning arrangements that it might require to secure the individual interests of that learner.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Interpretation of Part

Amendments made: 318, in clause 77, page 47, line 16, at end insert
(2A) For the purposes of this Part a child is subject to youth detention if
(a) subject to a detention order, and
(b) detained in relevant youth accommodation..

This amendment defines when a child is subject to youth detention, for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill.
275, in clause 77, page 47, line 17, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is consequent on amendment 282. The effect of clause 250(2) and (3) is that the definition in the new section 13(4) of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by amendment 282) will apply for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill.
276, in clause 77, page 47, leave out lines 25 to 27.(Jim Knight.)

The amendment is consequent on amendment 275.

Clause 77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

The Chief Executive of Skills Funding

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 106, in schedule 4, page 161, line 30, at end insert
(2A) The Chief Executive may not employ more than 1,800 people in total..
Schedule 4 and clause 78 establish the post of chief executive of skills funding. The organisation, according to the explanatory notes, will be referred to as the Skills Funding Agency, and it will delegate to the chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service the apprenticeship functions in clause 79. As far as I can tell, the Bill makes no mention of either the SFA or the NAS. I am sure that there are strange British legislative reasons for their omission, but it would help me if the Minister were to explain those traditions, which have resulted in the two terms not being included.
Our concern is not just about nomenclature. The amorphous nature of the legislation establishing the bodies lends weight

Siôn Simon: In moving seats, I did not hear everything, so if the hon. Gentleman could recap the beginning of his speech, that would be great.

Nick Gibb: Yes, of course. Clause 78 and schedule 4 establish the post of chief executive of these bodies. The explanatory notes refer to the Skills Funding Agency and the National Apprenticeship Service, but neither term appears in the legislation. From my reading of the Bill, all that appears is the term,
Chief Executive of Skills Funding.
I assume that there is some strange House reason why the other terms are not included in the Bill, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what it is. This is not only about nomenclature but the amorphous nature of the legislation, which gives weight to the worry that we are sowing the seeds of two very large new bureaucratic empires. The Association of Colleges has expressed that worry, stating:
We are concerned that Further Education Colleges will have to respond to at least two funding bodies - their local authority and the SFA..
It wants to be sure that
Colleges do not spend even more time dealing with bureaucratic burdens and can concentrate maximum effort to teaching students
and feels that the process of abolishing the LSC and transferring its powers and functions to local authorities, the YPLA and the SFA should have been used as an opportunity to remove some of the duties and powers, not to reinforce them.
Amendment 106 would mean that the chief executive of the SFA could employ no more than 1,800 staffthe number that will be transferred from the LSC to the SFA, as confirmed by the Minister on Tuesday. The impact assessment states:
As part of our thinking on the design of the new structures we are looking at opportunities for making administrative savings through centralisation of functions, including looking at the potential to share support services where possible, and greater use of new technology.
It would assist the Committee if the Minister could expand on those matters and set out where he envisages cost savings being made, which support services are to be shared, and how new technology will help. We want to be reassured that the carefully crafted sentences in the impact assessment have behind them schedules and plans that will result in cost savings.
Before I talk about the cost implications for colleges, I have one further point to make on the cost of the plans to the Exchequer. As we heard on Tuesday, when we debated the transition costs of transferring staff from the LSC to the YPLA, the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Minister for Schools and Learners explicitly stated in evidence sessions that the costs were set out in the impact assessment budget. The Minister has, in effect, already apologised for that. The impact assessment states:
Although on-going costs of the new system will be revenue neutral there are likely to be transition costs relating to premises and pensions and, potentially, the transfer of the people from the LSC to their new employers. There will be assets that can be realised to offset these costs, such as the premises, though the current economic climate will make the calculations more complex. Work on calculating these is on-going and will proceed alongside the development of the designs for the Young Peoples Funding Agency and Skills Funding Agency.
Alas, that is all that it says about transition costs. The Minister is not in the room at the moment, but he must have had the impact assessment in front of him when he said that it sets out the transition costs in full. Moments before he explicitly stated that the transitional costs were set out in the impact assessment, he said that
we expect to make administrative savings through a centralisation of functions, including shared support services, the greater use of technology[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2009; c. 180, Q428.]
Those words were lifted directly from page 32 of the impact assessment. It has been 48 hours since we asked him to provide estimates from the DCSF and DIUS of the transition costs. I hope and expect that they will be supplied when the Government respond so that we do not have to return to the issue on Report.
On the cost to colleges of the new arrangements, it is depressing to see the vision set out in the impact assessment. We used to have one organisationthe LSCbut now its functions will be carried out by three or more bodies, including local authorities, the YPLA and the SFA. The impact assessment states:
Best practice guidance will be produced to cover partnership working.
So one organisation is taken, split into three separate organisations and then a 20-page document is issued, to be read by all the senior figures in each of those new organisations, about how they should all work together. It says:
In line with existing practice, providers of both 16-18 and post-19 education and training will continue to have separate commissioning conversations but, instead of these being with the LSC they will be with both the Skills Funding Agency and a local authority. This will not, therefore, be an additional burden on these providers, as in many cases they currently have multiple commissioning conversations with the Learning and Skills Council regarding these separate areas.
It goes on to say:
In designing the new system we are looking for opportunities to streamline arrangements  for example by using a single performance management framework for both pre- and post-19 providers.
So there will be a single performance management framework. What a good idea! Maybe in time, once the new arrangements have settled down, we can merge the management structures and even create one overarching organisation that performs the functions of all three organisations in a streamlined way, benefiting from synergies and further efficiency savings. Until that moment comes, can the Minister expand a little more on what is meant by a single performance management framework, giving us a reassurance that that phrase is more than just a set of words drafted into a document for the impact assessment?
Amendment 106 would limit the number of staff that the SFA can employ to 1,800the number that will transfer from the LSC. That should far exceed the number needed if costs are to be reduced. The SFA is not taking on any new functions, such as administering the academies, so the figure of 1,800 should leave it with maximum flexibilityapart from the flexibility to expand its empire and clock up ever-rising costs. I look forward to hearing the Ministers response.

Stephen Williams: Good afternoon, Mr. Chope.
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has said, because I, too, find it curious that the clause establishes the office of the chief executive of the SFA rather than the nature of the organisation over which he or she will preside.
The hon. Gentleman made various references to cost savings. When I was a member of the Education and Skills Committeenow the Children, Schools and Families Committeethe chief executive of the LSC, Mark Haysom, appeared before us. We questioned him several times on the nature of the cost savings that the LSC had had to make in its short life, with much upheaval having been visited on it by the Government. Its total staff complement has changed many times, as has the nature of the organisation. The amendment would therefore represent a good start in trying to limit the staff numbers of the new agency, the SFA.
It seems odd that we will have to wait for a memorandum from the Secretary of State that establishes exactly what form the SFA will take and what its functions will be. Perhaps the only saving grace in all this change is that it is clear that the SFA will be incorporated directly within the Department and that it will not be a separate agency, as the LSC is at the moment. If there are any potential future foul-ups and confusion over who has given approval for college capital expenditure budgets to be accelerated before the brakes are put on and an investigation is launched into the fact that one part of the Government did not know what another part was doing, it is to be hoped that such confusion will be avoided by the direct accountability to the permanent secretary and, through him, to the ministerial team. That might be an improvement in terms of college capital expenditure.
I support the Conservative amendment because it is important that we try to establish some parameters for this new body.

Siôn Simon: Beginning with amendment 106 itself, I understand what Opposition Members are trying to say. Clearly, we have no desire to create a bloated new bureaucracy. What we want is an SFA that can be responsive and adaptable, and that works with providers to meet the needs of employers and learners. But, as the hon. Member for Bristol, West said, it is essential that the chief executive is able to exercise his or her own judgment about the number of staff needed to carry out the vital work. That judgment will be exercised and those staffing levels managed within an agreed administrative budget allocated by the Secretary of State. The funding will be accounted for in the Departments expenditure plans. The Secretary of State will be accountable for that expenditure to Parliament. The SFA will also be subject to independent scrutiny by the National Audit Office which will also be required

Nick Gibb: Should the chief executive have the discretion to employ more than 18,000 people?

Siôn Simon: The chief executive must have the discretion to make his or her own judgments about the number of staff needed to do the job. I think it very unlikely that the chief executive will have to employ more than 18,000 people. It would be very unusual and potentially counter-productive to put an arbitrary number such as that into the Bill. As I say, there is no intention to increase that number.

Stephen Williams: In the past when Departments or quangos have reduced their staff complements they have often gone out and hired consultants to deal with some of those tasks. What consultancy budget does the Minister think this new agency will have?

Siôn Simon: I am sure that hon. Gentleman does not seriously expect me to speculate on the consultancy budget of the new agency. Actually, he raises a very good point. If there were an 18,000 staff limit in the Bill and for reasons that we cannot currently imagine the chief executive required more work to be doneperhaps urgent, important and very value-for-money, cost-effective work in the national intereststhan could be done by those 18,000 people, what would he or she do? I suspect the answer is that they would

Stephen Williams: Not do the work.

Siôn Simon: That remark from a sedentary position is a disappointingly cynical approach to very hard-working people in the LSC. If we put an arbitrary cap like this on the number of permanent staff, in the very unlikely event that extra capacity were needed, the SFA would be almost obliged to turn to consultants who might be more expensive.

John Hayes: The outrage expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton about the absence of pertinent information is indicative of his passionate concern for the public interest. Does the Minister know whether any estimate was made of the cost savings to be made when the LSC was set up?

Siôn Simon: Do I know whether estimates were made of the cost savings to be made before the LSC was set up in the late 90s? I do not know the answer to that off the top of my head. I do know that in the first period of its operation the LSC saved £50 million a year on its original budget and another £40 million a year in the second period. The situation that the SFA will inherit will by now be saving £90 million on the original budget. There is no intention that the complement of staff should grow.

John Hayes: All those figures are quite properly drawn from parliamentary answers. The Minister is right about the figure of £50 million. Does he know how long it took to pay for the reorganisation in terms of the clearing-up work due to the abolition of the training and enterprise councils?

Siôn Simon: I am not going to spend the rest of the afternoon debating with the hon. Gentleman how long it took and how much it cost to put right the mess that we inherited from Conservative party. There were 72 TECs under the Conservatives, which we streamlined considerably. Any outcome now will be vastly fewer organisations than presided over the skills system under his party.
Let me make some progress. To constrain the chief executive in such a way could have an adverse impact in reducing his flexibility, and that is why we do not propose to do it.
Schedule 4 sets out the provisions relating to the chief executives status, tenure of office and terms of appointment. It also sets out provisions relating to staff and the delegation of functions of the office to staff; funding and payment of grants from the Secretary of State to the chief executive; arrangements for preparing annual reports and accounts, as well as the provisions on the supplementary powers that may be exercised by the chief executive in connection with the functions of the office and restrictions of those powers.
To answer the hon. Gentlemans point about which bits of the new organisations are named in the Bill, there are two things going on. First, I am told that it is not normal to name agencies in legislation and that they are generally established administratively by Departments. In this case, we want to put duties on a statutory postholder to make it clear that there should be more separation between the postholder and the Secretary of State than in an Executive agency. That postholder is responsible for implementation and the allocation of resources on the ground. It is an unusual beast. The fair access regulator is quite similarly constructed but on a much smaller basis. There are other examples, but, as I say, it is a relatively unusual beast in Government.

Nick Gibb: In this case the National Apprenticeship Service is an agency of an agency. It is not an agency established by the Department directly.

Siôn Simon: No, the National Apprenticeship Service is not an agency. It is a service that sits within the Skills Funding Agency. Its chief executive has a direct reporting responsibility to the two Secretaries of State because the National Apprenticeship Service job, with its planning and delivering of apprenticeships, is so important. The NAS is not an agency. The Skills Funding Agency, although we have called it an agency for the sake of explaining what it does, is not an Executive agency in the way that, for instance, Jobcentre Plus is. The statutory power is vested in the statutory officeholder, who is the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency.

Nick Gibb: Is the chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service the accounting officer of that service?

Siôn Simon: Before I answer that question, I will reply to the hon. Gentlemans point on transition costs. He made that point very strongly in debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, who said that he would write to him before Report stage. I can confirm that he will write to Opposition Members about the details that were not included in the way that they would have liked in the impact assessment.

John Hayes: We want the letter to be as useful as possible for all members of the Committee. Will it include a schedule for the repayment of any costs? Relevant to my earlier intervention is the fact that in the 2006-07 budget line for costs, the reorganisation of text was still accounted for by the Learning and Skills Council. The last reorganisation was still being paid off six or seven years later.

Siôn Simon: I am afraid that we will have to wait for the letter to see what detail is in it. I simply do not know whether that level of detail will be available. If the information is available and can be got, then I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be happy to share it with members of the Committee.
To reply to the question from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton about the single performance framework, it is the framework for excellence, which already exists, and is being developed and expanded. It covers the same performance indicators for participation, achievement and the drop rate, and will be implemented for 16 to 19 and adult providers by 2010.
On the relationship between DIUS and the SFA, and the SFA and its operational responsibilities, there is an outline of what the framework document will look like. If that document is in a state to be sharedI am pretty sure that it isI will be happy to write to Members before Report stage to share it with them.
I remind hon. Members that we do not need to put the agency on the face of the Bill at all; we could have gone about this administratively. We want to put it in the Bill to create more distance in respect of the operational delivery.

Nick Gibb: I understand that point very well, but I wonder whether before the Minister concludes he can return to the names of the accounting officers who will be accountable to the Public Accounts Committee for the performance of the NAS and the SFA?

Siôn Simon: Sorry, I forgot that bit. The chief executive of the SFA will be the accounting officer for both.

John Hayes: That is a useful answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but given that the NAS reports to two Departments, what line of political responsibility will it be in terms of the proper scrutiny from organisations such as the Public Accounts Committee?

Siôn Simon: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentlemans question. Is he asking whether the chief executive of the NAS will appear before the Public Accounts Committee? In that case, as he is not the accounting officer, then the answer is no.

John Hayes: I will clarify my intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the responsibilities of the Public Accounts Committee regarding the officers of the NAS. The point that I was making is that there is also a line of political accountability, given that the NAS reports to two separate Departments. What is that line of political accountability? Which Ministers will take responsibility regarding the Public Accounts Committees scrutiny of the NAS?

Siôn Simon: I am not sure whether it is for me to determine which Ministers will appear before the Public Accounts Committee. However, I envision that, given that the chief executive of the NAS will make a dual political report, to each Secretary of State, if there were to be officers from that organisation or Ministers appearing before Select Committees to answer for that organisation, it will be Ministers from both Departments. However, the ultimate answer is that the chief executive of the SFA is the accounting officer, and that is where the ultimate accountability for the operation of the NAS, which is housed statutorily within the SFA, will lie.

John Hayes: I do not want to be unnecessarily inquisitive about this, although I suppose to be so is our purpose. The NAS relationship with the SFA is becoming clearer as a result of the Ministers comments. However, I understand that the SFA does not report to both Departments, so presumably if the accountability is assured through the SFA, it is hard to understand why Ministers from a Department with which the SFA has no relationship would be involved in an inquiry concerning those matters by a body such as the Public Accounts Committee.

Siôn Simon: I now understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The distinction, which I perhaps have explained better, is that the statutory relationship is through the chief executive of Skills Funding, who is a civil servant accountable to the permanent secretary at DIUS. Beneath that, there is a relatively unusual dual report from the chief executive of the NAS directly to the two Secretaries of State. As for how that reporting line would manifest itself in ministerial responsibilities to Select Committees

John Hayes: If that were to be drawn, it would be a mix of Jackson Pollock and Heath Robinson. We need to know how that political line of responsibility marries with the administrative responsibility, which the hon. Gentleman has made clear. It might be more straightforward if the Minister were to write to me about that, so that we could make progress.

Siôn Simon: I will be happy to reflect and write to the hon. Gentleman, should I have any inspired thoughts of anything that I have not said. However, I do not want to promise to write to him with new information that I do not have. I have explained the situation to him as best I can and as it is envisaged. On that basis, and on the basis of everything else, I hope that Opposition Members will feel able to withdraw their amendment and that we might make some progress.

Nick Gibb: It was nice to hear the Minister say that he has no desire to create a bloated new bureaucracy. I have never heard a Minister say that he would like to create a bloated new bureaucracy, yet our country is riddled with them and, I suspect, will continue to be so. He went on to say that the chief executive must have discretion to employ numbers as he sees fithe saw no reason to have an upper limit on those numbers. However he said that he thought that there was no intention to increase that number, which is assuring. Perhaps that is a phrase that the Public Accounts Committee can use when quizzing the various accounting officers who come before them, following the establishment of these organisations.
I get depressed when we have these debates. I read the impact assessment and I see phrases about setting up a single performance management framework, which I now understand is going to create excellence. If one looks at our state sector, one can see the waste, and the reorganisations that seem to take place every five, six or seven years. I am not assured by this debate that we have got this right and that our management techniques within the state sector will produce a streamlined, highly efficient operation. However, we will wait to see the letter that has been promised from the Minister for Schools and Learners setting out some proper facts and figures about the transition costs of transferring these operations from the LSC to the YPLA and the SFA. Pending the arrival of that letter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Amendment made: 306, in schedule 4, page 163, line 28, leave out this or any other and insert any.(Jim Knight.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 291.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 79

Apprenticeship functions

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 79, page 48, line 27, at end insert
(e) requiring the Chief Executive to secure that the person designated under subsection (1) is responsive to employers needs in relation to the provision of apprenticeships..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: clause stand part.
New clause 8Payments to employers
(1) The Chief Executive of Skills Funding shall ensure that
(a) all employers who take on an apprentice within a recognised apprenticeships framework are paid directly by the Chief Executive of Skills Funding;
(b) funding for apprentices is paid out in one sum at the beginning of the apprenticeship framework; and
(c) another sum is paid out upon completion. 
(2) The Chief Executive of Skills Funding shall ensure that
(a) any company with between 1 and 250 employees that subsequently takes on a full-time apprentice within a recognised apprenticeship framework should be paid a direct bonus on the learners completion of the full apprenticeship framework;
(b) the bonus stipulated is paid in one sum upon completion of the full apprenticeship framework; and
(c) a consultation process with small to medium companies engaged in fields related to science, engineering, technology and mathematics is undertaken with reference to the size of the financial incentive for these sectors.
(3) The Chief Executive of Skills Funding shall
(a) ensure that funds shall be provided for group training associations to provide apprenticeship training;
(b) ensure that funding is paid to employers involved in the establishment of group training associations;
(c) encourage employers who already operate successful apprenticeship schemes to support group training associations..

John Hayes: We have seen off the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister is back to discuss clause 79 and amendment 107.
Clause 79 allows the Secretary of State to direct the chief executive of Skills Funding to designate a person to carry out apprenticeship functions on behalf of the chief executive. As we heard a few moments ago, the Government expect that the person designated will be the chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service. We also heard that the NAS will be a discrete service within the Skills Funding Agency, which we now learn is not an agency at all. The chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service will undertake apprenticeship functions, including the duty to give places to young people on apprenticeship schemes. Subsection (5) sets out the apprenticeship functions that will be carried out under this clause. The clause allows the Secretary of State to define and regulate the relationship between the two postholders and to set out the functions on which the chief executive of the NAS or any other designated person will be required to report to the Secretary of State. As we heard a few moments ago, Secretary of State refers here to the Secretaries of State of both Departments.
Amendment 107 is relatively straightforward and I will therefore speak briefly to it. However, I am afraid that I will speak at some length about new clause 8, which is a pivotal clause in our estimation because it sets out an entirely different set of views on how the matters should be managed. The Minister will note that our amendment is devised to ensure that the design of the National Apprenticeship Service enables the Government to fulfil its pledge of world-class apprenticeships that provide high quality employer places and build support for more employer ownership of apprenticeships. His objection to earlier amendments, the purpose of which was to ensure greater employer involvement in building their frameworks and so better deliver apprenticeships, was that they were too bureaucratic. No such claim could be made about amendment 107. It merely seeks to ensure that the NAS does what it is supposed to do, building an effective apprenticeship service and having an apprenticeship brand that is alert to and responds to employer need.
I spoke previously about the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, and its Apprenticeships: a key route to skills paper. The noble Members of that eminent body concluded:
The Government has given individual employers too little involvement in how apprenticeships are run, rendering them little more than passive partners. Employers need to be at the centre of apprenticeship provision. Within five years, all Government funding for apprenticeships should go directly to employers, rather than through training providers as happens today.
The Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee on the draft Apprenticeships Bill, which preceded this Bill, reaffirmed concerns about employer engagement in the apprenticeship system. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) questioned the CBI witness who gave evidence to that Committee. When he asked about employer engagement, particularly about the prescriptive model that he perceived as the likely product of the Government policy and the NAS, the CBI witness replied:
I think that is a concern.
The Ministers hon. Friend, the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), asked whether the system was likely to be a success and the CBI witness replied:
In terms of whether it will be a success, it really has to focus on helping employers reduce the time they spend on bureaucracy, encouraging more young people of all abilities to take an apprenticeship.
We understand that the Bill will prevent funding flowing directly to employers, advancing it instead through the intermediary of the NAS. At the very least we should ensure that the service itself is responsive to employer need. That is the minimum that employers require and apprentices deserve, hence our amendment.
I shall speak more freely about new clause 8, which sets out an alternative vision for rejuvenating apprenticeships, and that lies at the heart of Conservative thinking. We know that the current system is imperfectI use the word with moderation, because others have been more critical. The chairman of BT, Sir Michael Rake, who is also chairman of the Commission for Employment and Skills, said that he has met no one who does not believe that the system is incredibly over-complex, and that it is ridiculous in cost of delivery, effectiveness and so on. That is a damning criticism from the man who has been appointed to chair the commission, so my comments, by comparison, are extraordinarily understated and moderate.
We know that the average public funding for an apprenticeship is around £3,750 per annum. We believe that it would be best if the payment were simplified into a single stream of money going direct to employers.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I want to make some progress, so that we can move on, but I will then happily give way. Otherwise, you will accuse me of delaying the Committee unduly, and I do not want to do that.

Christopher Chope: I would not consider doing that, Mr. Hayes.

John Hayes: You would certainly never do that, Mr. Chope, but the Minister might, because he can be mischievous.
The recent House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs supports that simpler funding model and says:
We believe that handing the money directly to employers not only provides companies with a greater incentive to provide apprenticeships but can also help to reduce red tape as well.
Conservatives understand that a commitment to train an apprentice involves a financial risk for employers. At base level, it takes time for an apprentice to start to make a financial contribution to the business. Under the current funding system, support for off-site training leading to national vocational qualifications and technical skills is paid month by month, with some of the money held back to ensure higher completion rates, so it takes employers a long time to see any real return on their investment.
The difficulty is not for large corporates, which can absorb the costs, but for small businesses it is a major disincentive; but it is through small businesses that we will rejuvenate the apprenticeship system from the bottom up. The House of Lords Select Committee report Apprenticeship: a key route to skill, to which I referred, says:
In the case of apprenticeship funding, the administrative chain separating policy from practice on the ground is a long and, we would argue, dysfunctional one.
The Bill is unlikely to improve that situation, as John Lucas of the British Chambers of Commerce made clear in his evidence, which I shall speak about, having first given way to the Minister.

Jim Knight: I am grateful for the hon. Gentlemans indulgence. He is extremely patient. He mentioned the average funding for apprenticeship places. Is his party committed to sustaining that level of funding per place at our projected volume?

John Hayes: We have no plans to do so, as the Minister will know if he reads Building Skills, Transforming Lives: A training and apprenticeships revolution, which should be his bible, because it is the Conservative partys green paper on opportunity and skills. It makes it clear that we intend to create 100,000 new apprenticeships, to pay money directly to employers, and to create an apprenticeship bonus, which I shall speak about in a few minutes. We have no intention of reducing the level of funding for apprenticeships. Our funding plans, which the Minister questions, include a bonus for each apprentice taken on by small and medium-sized enterprises to encourage them, because we know that SMEs have a vital role to play if we are to produce a step change in the number of employer-based apprenticeships. Proportionate costs to smaller businesses taking on apprenticeships are much greater than for larger companies. In a recent CBI survey, 29 per cent. of firms cited a lack of in-house capacity as the reason for not getting involved in apprenticeships. We want to change that through our SME bonus. The Federation of Small Businesses pointed out in the consultation for the draft Apprenticeships Bill that according to labour force surveys, 69 per cent. of all apprenticeships take place in small businesses but, it said, an inherent problem for businesses with fewer than 10 employees remains the cost to businesses of training their apprentices. Subsection (2)(c) of new clause 8 refers to consultation with SMEs in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics sector. Many experts regard STEM business as key to our future, as British firms increasingly need to compete in a high-skill, high-value world economy and as competition from emerging nations puts further downward pressure on labour costs. The STEM sector has a high proportion of SMEs and its ability to train people will be crucial.
When speaking of STEM businesses it is easy to focus on information systems, information technology and so on, but we should not ignore the creative and cultural sectora big growth area in our economywhich fares very badly from the Governments Train to Gain scheme. The Minister will be able to tell us precisely what proportion of such businesses benefit from Train to Gain, but the scheme is certainly not providing a significant contribution to training in that sector. Whereas, apprenticeships can indeed play a useful, highly valuable role in enabling Britain to continue to lead in the creative and cultural skills field. Subsection (3) of new clause 8 aims to provide funds to make it easier for employers to come together and pool their resources and talent to create their own apprenticeship schemes or group training associations. When a substantial body of employers within an industry is committed to sponsoring apprenticeships they should be encouraged and enabled to develop their own apprenticeship scheme. This is key to ensuring that employersit could be small employersare committed to apprenticeships. To ensure greater employer involvement in apprenticeships, funds should be provided for pilot schemes for new GTAs led by employers who already run successful apprenticeship schemes. In oral evidence to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee on the draft Apprenticeships Bill, the British Chambers of Commerce added its support for group training associations. It said:
The concept of a group training association will be at the heart for many small and medium sized businesses because the world of apprenticeships has changed from...where you had very large companies that were embedded in the regions that would often recruit 50, 70 or 100 apprentices at a time for both their own purposes and then for other business as well. Those have now gone. What we are looking at is a concept where one or two apprentices perhaps are being taken by a number of companies and we have effective delivery of training for those which brings in the group training association.
Even the Government, albeit slowly though I will not say reluctantly, have recognised the potential of group training associationstheir impact assessment accompanying the draft Apprenticeships Bill explained that the creation of GTAs is specifically intended to ease the administrative burden on small businesses. The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee report recommended that
the draft Bill be revised to place a duty on the National Apprenticeship Service to facilitate the setting up of bodies such as group training associations, to assist small businesses to carry the administrative burden of setting up apprenticeships, organising training and securing financial support.
In response, the Government stated in their special report of 2008-09, published on 12 February, that the Bill will require the chief executive of Skills Funding to secure apprenticeship training and encourage the provision of apprenticeship training among employers. These duties will be delegated to the chief executive of the National Apprenticeships Service.
The Government, I think grudgingly, have recognised that merely adding apprenticeships to those well established programmes of well respected large employers is not sufficient to make apprenticeships reasonably accessible to large numbers of people who could take up apprenticeship places in those areas of the country where there are fewer corporates. A glance at the breakdown of the number of apprenticeships in different areas shows extraordinary differences. Indeed, even across London there is an extraordinary disparity; some boroughs have very few apprenticeshipsGreenwich, for example, has just 200whereas other boroughs have 270 or 300. Some cities and towns have a small number, while others have long-established apprenticeship programmes and a large number of opportunities for young people and others. There are problems in parts of the country, and reinvigorating the system through SMEs, with the support of group training associations, will help to even out some of the variety.
In urging Members across the Committee to support new clause 8, I emphasise that I do not think that there is much difference in our ambitions for apprenticeships, but there are real differences in how we believe those ambitions are most likely to be realised. There is a disconnect between the Government and employers, which is why the new clause is vital. There was disappointment during the witness sessions from organisations such as the British Chambers of Commerce and the sector skills councils about the Government underestimating the role of employers and so understating it in the Bill. A bigger role for sector skills councils would also help to achieve our shared ambitions for apprenticeships. Their role is barely mentioned in the Bill, although I accept that it is dealt with liberally in the explanatory notes.
Because I do not want to unduly delay the Committee, I will just emphasise that the new clause would improve the Bill. It is certainly not destructive, although frankly, it does not sit terribly easily in the convoluted structure set out in the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton was so critical of a few moments ago. However, it at least goes some way towards improving the prospects of achieving the ambitions that the Government have rightly identified as essential to re-equip Britain with the skills it needs. Apprenticeships matter too much for us fail to deal with funding, support for small businesses, and the importance of group training associations and the STEM and high-tech industries. We have tabled the new clause for all of those reasons, and I am delighted to propose it on behalf of my hon. Friends.

Stephen Williams: I shall speak briefly to the amendment and the new clause as we still have a lot of ground to make up this afternoon. I have no difficulty supporting amendment 107, which states that the chief executive should be responsive to employers needs, however, it would be extraordinary if the chief executive was unresponsive to their needs. Although, as we established in the discussion on the previous clause, that person will be directly accountable to Ministers and so directly responsive to their targets and requirements, it is useful to make clear that the chief executives primary purpose is to be responsive to employers needs, rather than to Government targets. Perhaps, that was the intention behind the amendment.
I have general sympathy with new clause 8 because it is similar to our proposals in our policy review. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has been charged by his leader with reviewing his partys skills policy and has already waved his document around. I performed a similar function for my party. I do not have a document with me to wave aroundI have left it in the officebut I know that the ministerial Front Bench read it avidly and are, no doubt, sending circulars out to their colleagues in the country with lines of criticism.
All three parties want to encourage more people to be attracted by apprenticeship training and for more employers to offer such opportunities. However, employers need more of an incentive to create them and that is what lies behind the new clause. In our own deliberations we identified a pot of money, rather than a target, to create a number of new apprenticeship places. That would come from the growth in the Train to Gain budget over the next period, which is a little over £500 million. Rather than being left in the Train to Gain provisions, it should be specifically directed to paying the off-the-job training costs of apprentices in order to incentivise employers to offer those opportunities.
Subsection (3) of the new clause, which encourages the setting up of group training associations, is broadly similar to my new clause 13, which also states that the National Apprenticeship Service should encourage the setting up of group training associations. That is a new clause that I know has the enthusiastic supportI am sure this will gladden you, Mr. Chopeof the FSB. I look forward to hearing words of encouragement from the Government.

Christopher Chope: New clause 13, however good the hon. Gentleman thinks it is, has not been selected for debate, so I hope that he is not going to debate it.

Stephen Williams: I assure you, Mr. Chope, that that was the end of my remarks on my own new clause. It was not selected, mysteriously, for debate, but it is broadly similar. That was the point that I was making to subsection 3 of new clause 8, which has been selected for debate and we are discussing that.
What I was about to say was that I look forward to hearing from the Minister when he replies that the Government certainly will expect the NAS and the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to encourage the setting up of group training associations in various parts of the country, so that small businesses and communities where apprenticeships are at a low state, as referred to by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, are encouraged.

Jim Knight: As we have heard, the intention of amendment 107 is to require the chief executive of Skills Funding to take account of employers needs in delivering the apprenticeship programme. We agree that employers needs are fundamental and that is why we now have 130,000 participating employers. Of course, the apprenticeship scheme is a demand-led programme and, if we do not take account of employers needs, they will not participate; there would be no supply and no programme, so their needs are fundamental.
The chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service will report regularly to the Secretary of State on apprenticeships, and we will want to hold that person to account on employer involvement. Sector skills councils play, and will continue to play, a crucial and vital role in ensuring that employers needs are fully reflected in apprenticeship provision. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary and I ask the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw it.
It is tempting to say that new clause 8 is slightly fanciful, given that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was unable to provide the assurance, on Second Reading, that he had managed to secure the protections to his budget that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has to his budget. Therefore, all the talk about apprenticeships from the Conservatives is not going to come to anything. However, I will focus on new clause 8.
Subsection (1) of the new clause would require the chief executive of Skills Funding to fund directly employers who take on apprentices, with the funding provided in one lump sum at the beginning of the apprenticeship framework and a further sum paid on completion. Funding for the delivery of an apprenticeship framework is paid to who is actually delivering the training, which may be the employer or an external training provider. A proportion of the apprenticeship funding is paid on enrolment to the apprenticeship framework, with a further payment on successful completion.
Subsection (2) would put a bonus scheme into statute for small and medium-sized businesses to be paid once apprentices have completed a recognised framework. Payment to training providers, at 25 per cent. on completion of an apprenticeship, already acts as such an incentive. However, we think that it is right to direct that to the training provider. While I understand that the intention might be to incentivise employers to take on apprentices, a blanket subsidy of that kind runs the risk of being a dead-weight cost where we would have to fund things that have already been incentivised by the current incentive system. We therefore think that the suggestion is fundamentally flawed.
The intention behind subsection (3) appears to be to guarantee the ongoing role of group training associations in delivering apprenticeship training. I reassure the Committee that the Government are strongly committed to group training associations. The New Opportunities White Paper, which was published this year, set out new plans for a fund to establish or expand group training associations and similar consortiums, and we expect the National Apprenticeship Service to announce a prospectus for a £7 million funding stream by the end of next month. Given that we are already committed to group training associations, which have the same standing as any training provider, new clause 8 would not improve their position.
While I understand the aims of much of the new clause, the right funding arrangements to maximise employer participation and engagement are already in place. To accept the new clause would mean a spending commitment that I certainly cannot makeit is interesting that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings thinks that he canso it should not be pressed to a Division.

John Hayes: When the time comes, we will certainly press for a Division on new clause 8. On the Ministers response, make no mistake that paying employers up front, with the final payment being made on completion of the full framework so that completion rates are secured, would make a massive difference to employer engagement in apprenticeships. I am absolutely certain that, had the opportunity to obtain an apprenticeship bonus and take on apprentices arisen when I was a small business man in a growing company and industry that was recruiting staff, it would have influenced the companys recruitment and training policies. I believe that that is true of companies the length and breadth of Britain, so I completely disagree with the Minister about how money should be directed.
I share the view of most representatives of businesses and industry, the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee, which is that paying employers directly would create a more straightforward system that would be more attractive to employers, more transparent and much easier to market, which matters as much as anything in engaging new companies. It is extraordinary for the Minister to speak of dead-weight cost, given that the dead-weight cost of Train to Gain is so profound. Even the Government had to acknowledge during the pilot stage that it was a significant difficulty, not to mention the brokerage service associated with that appalling policy.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in quoting the CBI in support of his arguments. Employer satisfaction with Train to Gain is high: 92 per cent. are happy with the training course content and the provider that delivered it; 30 per cent. of people who completed a Train to Gain course got promoted the following year; and 43 per cent. got a pay rise. Furthermore, the CBI recently stated:
Train to Gain is exactly the product we need at this time.
Given that evidence, why does he not support the policy?

John Hayes: In the same survey, most employers reported that the benefit that they gained from Train to Gain was much less impressive than the Minister would have us believe; they said that it had little value. In addition, although I accept what he says about the CBI, there have been profound criticisms of Train to Gain from other employer organisations. Indeed, in his evidence to the Committee, John Lucas said:
It is fair to say that if funding, financial incentives and financial support for employers were equalised across the whole apprenticeship programme, both pre-19 apprenticeships and post-19 adult apprenticeships, employers would be happier.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 12, Q25.]
That is the precise position of the Opposition; we should equalise funding between so-called adult and other apprenticeships.
Just as most employers want the money paid direct, most people know that Train to Gain suffers from three things: a dead-weight cost; the confusion between assessment and real training; and immense cost-ineffectiveness. We could use that money much more wisely if it were redirected to the apprenticeship programme, as advocated in the paper that I mentioned. That would allow us to create 100,000 new apprenticeships. The Government do not support that objective, but it would engender the support of employers and potential learners.
I shall not say more, because the document speaks for itself. I have briefly outlined it, and the whole House knows of our commitment to skills and, in particular, to apprenticeships. However, even if the analysis and recommendations in the document did not exist, frankly we could not support a Bill that puts into place such a structure, even with the best will in the worldand good will seems to be the basis on which Ministers were recommending the Bill to the House. Just last week a Minister said that good will was a fundamental element in the Bills genesis and likely delivery. Frankly, good will is something that we try to practise and preach at Christmas, but it is crackers to base legislation on it. Legislation should be based on a proper analysis of what is happening, and on a set of plans that can deliver an improvement in the status quo.
We shall not build an apprenticeship programme around a convoluted, confused structure that is unlikely to be understood by learners, is likely to bemuse employers and will certainly not incentivise small and medium-sized enterprises to get more involved in the apprenticeship programme. For that reason, we shall press new clause 8 to a vote when the time comes, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 185, in clause 79, page 49, line 1, leave out issued by the English certifying authority.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 152.
186, in clause 79, page 49, line 22, leave out (3) and insert (4).(Jim Knight.)

This is a technical drafting amendment correcting a cross-reference.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Apprenticeship training for persons aged 16 to 18 and certain young adults

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 229, in clause 80, page 49, line 41, at end insert
(ba) increasing opportunities for people with learning difficulties to gain skills and training to increase transition from education into employment;.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment 230, in clause 101, page 60, line 39, at end insert
(2A) It shall be the duty of the Chief Executive to ensure that all services and facilities mentioned in this section are provided in such a way as to meet the needs of persons with learning difficulties..
New clause 10Persons aged 16 to 18 with a learning difficulty
(1) The Chief Executive must, in performing the functions of the office, have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties to whom this section applies.
(2) This section applies to persons who are aged 16 to 18, other than persons who are aged under 25 and are subject to learning difficulty assessment.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person has a learning difficulty if
(a) the person has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of persons the same age, or
(b) the person has a disability which prevents or hinders the person from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided by institutions providing education falling within section 92(1)(a) or (b)..
New clause 11Provision of support in the apprenticeship workplace
(1) The Chief Executive of Skills Funding has a duty to ensure that apprentices with learning difficulties receive appropriate support in the workplace through
(a) special educational needs provision for apprentices in the workplace over the age of 16; and
(b) The Access to Work Scheme.
(2) The Chief Executive of Skills Funding has a duty to ensure that employers and apprentices are informed of their entitlement to support in the apprenticeship workplace.
(3) In this section support in the apprenticeship workplace includes special educational needs provision (regardless of whether the apprentice is subject to learning difficulty assessment) and the Access to Work Scheme..

Annette Brooke: I shall endeavour to be brief, concise and to the point, because I am looking forward to precise clarification from the Minister. The amendments and two new clauses are interconnected and attempt to get clarification on the situation with regard to people with learning difficulties. There are many opportunities in the proposed apprenticeship programme, and we need to get things right for people with disabilities.
Amendment 229 is intended to give recognition to the importance of apprenticeships in supporting disabled people to bridge the gap between education and the labour market. Apprenticeships are important in supporting disabled people to gain qualifications, workplace experience and skills. Both employers and employees gain valuable experience and skills in understanding disability and breaking down barriers.
Royal National Institute of Blind People research indicates that 92 per cent. of employers would find it difficult or impossible to employ a blind or partially sighted person, which just shows that, given the Bills high objectives, it will not be easy to tackle the issue, although it will be necessary to do so. The proposed extra duty in amendment 229 would enable the chief executive of Skills Funding to tackle the problem. I should be grateful for the Ministers response to the simple proposal of adding the requirement that the chief executive takes on board the need to support fully people with learning difficulties.
Amendment 230 is fairly straightforward and should involve the straightforward matter of the Minister telling me that the proposal will be introduced. It would ensure that people with disabilities have access to the information that they need. He will be aware that I have been involved in trying to improve access to textbooks for people with sight impairment, and it is very difficult to ensure full accessibility. The amendment, therefore, focuses on learners with some form of print-related disabilityblind and partially sighted people, and all who find it difficult to access material in written or electronic forms. We ask for a properly designed website that conforms with web content accessibility guidelines, an accessible print format, such as large print, giant print or Braille, an audio format or an easy-to-read format. The amendment would mean that the chief executive has to ensure that all information on apprenticeships, whether from the NAS, the national portal, or from an employers advertisement, was accessible to disabled would-be apprentices.
On new clause 10, we established last week that the chief executive will have a duty to those with learning difficulties, and that learning difficulties was an all-encompassing term. A learning difficulty or a physical disability might create issues with accessing the training under discussion. As I understand the situation, the chief executive has a duty to those with learning difficulties in respect of disabled learners aged 19 to 25. The chief executive must also have due regard for those over 16 with a statement of special educational needs. However, those aged 16 to 18 years old who do not have a statement may not have one for all sorts of reasons: they may not have been assessed at school; they may have failed to get a statement; or they might have developed a learning disability, such as sight loss, aged 17. I am therefore concerned that the Bill might not cover those people, so I am looking for a clear answer, because that could represent a significant oversight, and disabled apprentices in that age group must be given the same support that we welcome the Bill giving to their statemented or post-19 peers.
There are a few further points to clarify, and they are relevant to all the amendments. The Learning and Skills Council was a statutory body and had a disability equality duty, but there is general concern about whether the Skills Funding Agency will have that specific duty. It is quite difficult to work through that issue, given the bodys formation and its location within the new structure, but we need an assurance that the new and complicated structure that is proposed will deal with that duty.
Finally, employer-led programmes and special educational needs provision obviously have to be of concern to agencies representing those with learning disabilities. We drafted new clause 11 to find out how the duties towards those with learning difficulties will be met while the apprentice is in the workplace. It can be difficult to perform such duties in the classroom, but it is even more important to do so in the workplace and support will be critical and valuable. We should also be interested to know how the Government intend to join up SEN provision access to work provision. There are several probing aspects within the string of amendments and new clauses, and I hope that we can receive clarification because they are important for many people within the age groups under discussion.

John Hayes: As the hon. Lady said, the amendments and new clauses are important. They highlight the value of involving those with learning difficulties between the ages of 16 and 18 in opportunities that we want for other citizens. In principle, we are extremely supportive of legislation to improve the chances of disabled learners and those with learning difficulties. All learners must be given the chance to make the best of their aptitudes, interests and skills and, only by their doing that, can we build the just and cohesive society that we seek.
However, a couple of issues need to be dealt with. There is a debate about which apprenticeship schemes would in practical terms be available to different learners. It would certainly not be true that all apprentice schemes would be suitable for all sorts of learners. Those with particular learning difficulties or disabilities might find some apprenticeships either impossible or undesirable. I want to test the hon. Lady and the Minister on such matters.
New clause 10 would move disabled students aged 16 to 18 to the aegis of the SFA. Is that necessarily the best thing? Perhaps the new clause would not do that.

Annette Brooke: I am sorry, but I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentlemans sentence. Will he repeat it?

John Hayes: What?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady said that she did not hear what you said.

Christopher Chope: Order. To prevent the debate being a dialogue of the deaf, can everyone speak up?

John Hayes: I shall broadcast my sentiments rather more powerfully.
New clause 10 explicitly moves disabled students between the ages of 16 and 18 to the aegis of the SFA. Would that always be in their best interests or might it, perversely, occasionally limit opportunities for them? That could be an unintended consequence of the change.
There is some concern about what is entailed in having regard to the needs of a person with a disability
which prevents or hinders the person from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided by institutions providing education.
Will the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole or the Minister make it clear how that would work in practice? A balance needs to be struck between opening opportunities and creating the impression that we provide all kinds of services and openings, which could not practically be delivered. Notwithstanding all that, I understand why the amendments have been tabled and I am extremely sympathetic to them in principle.

Annette Brooke: I am sure that the Minister will clarify that point further, but that is the terminology used in the Bill. It is picked up in this new clause to make sure that there is equal treatment of the younger age group.

John Hayes: I understand now where those words come from. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that clear. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about the balance that he intends to strike between ensuring that the entitlements that we all believe in are widely available to people with the kind of challenges that the hon. Lady has identified and the practical issues around delivery.

Jim Knight: I understand and support the sentiment behind the amendment. We believe firmly in maximising opportunities for people with learning difficulties to take up apprenticeship training, but we consider the amendment to be unnecessary as the Bill already builds on existing legislation to ensure that the needs of people with learning difficulties are met. We have made a number of provisions in the Bill. Clause 80 confers on the chief executive of Skills Funding the power to secure the provision of suitable apprenticeship training for people aged 19 to 24 who are subject to a learning difficulty assessment. These are the same people for whom a local education authority must ensure that enough suitable education and training facilities are provided under the duty contained in proposed new section 15ZA of the Education Act 1996, inserted by clause 40. There is also a general duty in clause 111 on the chief executive of Skills Funding
to have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties 
when exercising his or her functions. That would cover adults over the age of 18.
On amendment 230, I can assure the hon. Lady that the vacancy matching service will be accessible to people with disabilities and has been set up according to approved guidelines for accessibility for disabled people. That covers those who are partially sighted and have reading difficulties because of visual impairment whom she mentioned and whose cause she champions in the House. The vacancy matching service will provide the opportunity for learners with difficulties and disabilities to raise anything they will require for an interview so that they have the opportunity to be fully supported. There will be additional support where, for example, disabled people are not being successful in their applications. I can also confirm that the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 amends the 1995 Act to introduce a statutory duty on public authorities, which would include Skills Funding and the National Apprenticeship Service, to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.

John Hayes: The NAS will be focused on all types of learners. What specific expertise is it likely to have in respect of disabled learners? Where will disabled learners get advice if they are not in touch with Connexions? I am thinking of younger people here. What specific facility will there be to provide them with the necessary support, advice and guidance that they might need to embark on the courses of training that are an implicit part of the Bill?

Jim Knight: The sort of expertise that the NAS would have would be that which migrates from the current LSC. The numbers of learners in the FE system, for example, declaring learning difficulties and/or disabilities is 618,000. Some expertise will transfer to local authorities, and there are the duties of co-operation between the chief executive of Skills Fundingand through him the delegated person, who would be the chief executive of the NASand local authorities. Through local authorities, young people would get advice from Connexions, and, when they reach the relevant age, they would get advice from the Adult Advancement and Careers Service.

John Hayes: Given that Skill, the institute for disabled students, has highlighted its concerns about the quality of information advice, it is not incredibly convincing to say that we will simply pull across the existing skills of the Learning and Skills Council. If the organisation that represents the interests of disabled students is worried about what services are provided, surely we should think about how we can enhance and improve those services. For example, would it be possible to mission the NAS to take on additional skills to deal with that? Perhaps there could be a section within the organisation aimed at such learners. This is a specialist area that requires the right kind of people and the right quality of advice.

Jim Knight: It is certainly our intention to work with organisations such as Skill, which provide a powerful voice for the interests of those individuals and ensure that we have the right capacity and skills to deal with that important group of vulnerable learners within the NAS. We have also introduced the information, advice and guidance standard for local authorities, which we discussed when we debated the Education and Skills Bill last year. The implementation of that is an important aspect of improving the overall quality of the IAG available through local authorities and Connexions. The fact that we introduced that standard and have more to say on information, advice and guidance this year, is an implicit recognition that we can do more to raise the quality of information, advice and guidance. One aspect of that will be to ensure that the advice and guidance that we have for this group of people is as good as possible.
New clause 10 would replicate provisions in clause 111 that relate to 16 to 18-year-olds, by placing a duty on the chief executive to
have regard to the needs of persons with learning difficulties
when exercising functions. It is essentially a replication, and I urge the hon. Lady not to press the clause.
Finally, on new clause 11, I assure the Committee that access to work is being expanded. When creating further apprenticeship places, employers are made aware of their obligations to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate those with a learning difficulty, and they are advised of support on which they may draw. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 also places duties on employers. Most aspiring apprentices with a learning difficulty will have their support needs identified and met during the recruitment process, prior to commencing an apprenticeship. We do not believe that the amendment would strengthen that provision.

Annette Brooke: Let me return to new clause 10I apologise, but the Minister was in full swing. I am aware that clause 111 covers many of the points, including that about picking up on the definition. However, the concern was that there is a gap in relation to 16 to 18-year-olds who do not have a statement at that point. I do not believe that the Minister has addressed that.

Jim Knight: I think we addressed that point when we discussed part 2 regarding assessments for LLDD. The debate and discussions that we had on clause 40 were relevant to that, as are sections 13 and 13A of the Education Act 1996. The combination of those things addresses the point raised by the hon. Lady on new clause 10. I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his replies. I feel reassured about the accessibility of information on amendment 229. The amendment was perhaps the icing on the cake, but it was useful for clarification and the Minister had a lot to say about people with learning difficulties being protected and supported within the workplace. I am not convinced about new clause 10, and the gap regarding 16 to 18-year-olds. If necessary, I shall return to that matter at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81

Arrangements and co-operation with local education authorities

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 204, in clause 81, page 50, line 11, leave out local education authorities and insert employers and providers of training.

Christopher Chope: With this we may discuss amendment 205, in clause 81, page 50, line 14, leave out subsection (2).

John Hayes: We are making such rapid progress and moving ahead with such alacrity that we come to clause 81 and amendments 204 and 205, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
The explanatory notes set out that the responsibility for a range of apprenticeships is delegated to the chief executive officer of the NAS, who then organises matters with local education authorities. We want to make it absolutely clear that we are stout defenders of local government. I served for many years on Nottinghamshire county council; for most of that time, I was the shadow chairman of education. Once again, I pay tribute to the councillors across the country of all political parties who give such sterling service to their localities, through their work in local government.
However, we are simply not convinced that local authorities have a significant role to play in the way that is envisaged by the Bill. I have previously argued that incorporation of FE colleges gave them a new lease of life. They look ahead to the days when they come under the influenceindeed, one might say within the powerof local government with some scepticism, and that is an understatement, given what some college principals have said to me.
Amendment 204 is a simple one. It would replace local education authorities with employers and education providers. There is a real gap in the Bill on the role of employers, which has been established through our consideration of it. Employers are not given the weight that we need to give them to make the ambitions that lie at the heart of this Bill a reality. The amendment is straightforward.
Amendments 204 and 205 reflect the remarks of Richard Wainer of the CBI, who said in his evidence to the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee on the draft Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill:
The priority for a government apprenticeship policy has to be ensuring that more employers are getting involved.
John Lucas of the British Chambers of Commerce said:
In terms of funding and its distribution, I do not think that local authorities have a track record of employer engagement. [Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 6, Q3.]
Indeed, the BCC brief on the draft Bill said that
apprenticeships should be employer led, offer real progression routes for apprentices, whether that be onto development in the workplace, or further and higher education.
Amendment 204 attempts to alleviate those concerns by ensuring that the NAS works with employers, whereas amendment 205 would remove any reference to LEAs, cutting away the dead hand of local authority control and the excessive bureaucracy and red tape that would become synonymous with the proposed system.
These moves are clearly supported by the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee recommendations and by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which argued that apprenticeships:
should be...a unique public-private partnership. Three actors contributeemployer, apprentice and governmentand all stand to benefit from a successful partnership.
To say more would be superfluous. The case is made. I fully expect the Minister to embrace these amendments if, as I do, he truly believes that the success of his ambitions will depend on effective employer engagement.

Stephen Williams: I will be incredibly brief, as even the hon. Gentleman spoke briefly to his own amendment.
I am heavily sceptical about the amendments, which seem to delete entirely the role of local authorities when it comes to people who are under the age of 19. I think the hon. Gentleman referred to the dead hand of local authority control. As a former county councillor, albeit in the post-college incorporation periodI was elected in 1993I do not think that local authorities are a dead-hand part of our government structure. Good local authorities can be enabling authorities, which will work in concert with employers. I think that that is the better way forward, rather than deleting their role entirely.

Jim Knight: While the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings described himself as a stout defender, and was working on his stoutness over lunch, I was at the Local Government Association at a meeting with councillors, to whose work I pay tribute.
I understand the sentiment behind the amendments. It is, of course, essential that the chief executive of the SFA, through the NAS, consults employers and training providers, both about the volume of apprenticeship places that they are able to offer and about how to stimulate demand for apprenticeships among young peopleindeed, in clause 82, there is some mention of the work that the SFA will carry out with employers.
The NAS will also work closely with employers and providers to increase the number of apprenticeships on offer. I can provide a categorical assurance to the Committee that that will happen. Relationships with employers and training providers are critical if we are to ensure that the apprenticeship scheme is implemented effectively. However, the amendment would undermine the relationship between the NAS, which will be acting on behalf of the chief executive of the SFA, and local authorities. That relationship is central to the successful operation of the apprenticeship scheme. Removing that duty to co-operate would mean that there is no link between local authorities role in the provision of 16-to-19 learning places and the NASs role in securing a sufficient supply of apprenticeship places to meet demand. Without that linkage, the apprenticeship scheme cannot be implemented effectively. I think that the hon. Gentleman believes that we cannot have a good relationship between the NAS and local authorities, between the NAS and employers, and between local authorities and employers, but I believe that that circle can be squared.
The key principle underpinning the 16-to-19 planning process is that local authorities will plan and commission provision across the full range of post-16 options available to young people, and that funding should follow learner choices. Planning by local authorities must therefore reflect, as closely as possible, the choices that young people are likely to make, and the trends in their choices about what, where and when they want to learn. We are committed to ensuring that apprenticeships are rooted as a high-quality, mainstream education and training route for young people, fully integrated in the common application process and the 14-to-19 prospectus. The relationship between local authorities and the NAS is critical to ensuring that that situation comes about. It is for that reason that I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

John Hayes: The problem with the response of the hon. Member for Bristol, West is that it is dependent on an assumption that local authorities should be involved in these matters in the way that he articulates and is embodied in the Bill. We acknowledge that local authorities have a critical role in economic developmentindeed, they have a statutory role. As he will know, unitary and county authorities and districts have a statutory economic development function. So of course it is appropriate that they are a stakeholdera playerand that they are involved in all kinds of discussions, consultations and negotiations with the other agencies responsible for economic development, either directly or indirectly.
However, giving local authorities a funding and management rolea direct role in the creation and delivery of the training regime that the Government have set out in the Billseems to be yet another example of making something that should be straightforward complex. If the Government faced up to the prospect of a deregulated system, with all its virtuesa system of free-standing, self-managed further education colleges, funded and managed by a slim funding agency, which would obviously, in the end, be directly under Ministers, with, of course, appropriate checks and balances to ensure the quality of education and probitywe would not need such a complicated piece of legislation, with all the features that the Bill contains. Local authority involvement is another part in that immensely complex machine.

Jim Knight: In a vain attempt to persuade the hon. Gentleman of my case, I remind him of what the much-quoted CBI representative, Richard Wainer, said in a reply to him in evidence:
Our members are primarily concerned about ensuring that they get a good-quality apprenticeship programme, so as long as local authorities adequately consult and work with local employers in ensuring that they are putting on the sort of apprenticeship programmes that are in demand, I think that our members will be generally happy.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 6, Q4.]
That is a positive endorsement.

John Hayes: The comments that the Minister quoted were made by someone who will be obliged to work with the system and who will make the best of what the Government provide. Employers, by their nature, will work with the prevailing system. Mr. Wainer, the CBI spokesman, made that clear. Whether employers would choose such a system is an entirely different matter. The employers, FE college principals and others in the sector to whom I speak seek a simpler system, in which we have none of the opacity of the funding regime that the Minister is proposing, none of the obtuse organisational structure and none of the obscure systems for reporting and accountability.
I said earlier that if the proposals were represented pictorially, we would have a mixture of Pollock and Heath Robinson. I am inclined to think that there would be a bit of Warhol in there as well. At least Heath Robinsons drawings have a certain symmetry; I suspect that the Bill lacks that. Although I understand that local authorities have an important role to play because of the statutory responsibilities that I describedof course, if the system was working properly, we would want to draw on their expertiseI do not think that Connexions should be based in them, that they should have a funding and management role in FE colleges, or that they should play a key statutory or management role in apprenticeships. It is as simple as that. If that directly contradicts the Ministers view, so be it.
On that basis, I intend to press amendment 204 to a Division. This is an important matter that shows a sharp difference among what is otherwise an immensely agreeable Committee.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Duty to secure availability of apprenticeship places for persons aged 16 to 18

Jim Knight: I beg to move amendment 409, in clause 83, page 50, line 36, leave out conferred by sections 80 to 82 and insert of the office.

This technical amendment is consequent on amendments 410 and 411. Its effect is to require the Chief Executive to exercise functions relating to persons aged 19 or over so as to secure sufficient suitable apprenticeship places for persons having elected for the apprenticeship scheme under clause 84.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 410 to 412.

Jim Knight: The purpose of these Government amendments is to extend the apprenticeship scheme so that an apprenticeship place will be made available to all suitably qualified care leavers up to the age of 25. This is a commitment that was made in the New Opportunities: Fair chances for the future White Paper, which was published earlier this year. It is our intention that the apprenticeship scheme for care leavers will work in exactly the same way as it will for 16 to 18-year-olds. That means that care leavers will have to meet the same minimum entry criteria.

John Hayes: We are broadly supportive of the amendment, which seeks to ensure that care leavers to whom a local authority in England owes certain duties will be able to apply for apprenticeships. We have three questions. First, does the Minister have any idea what the sufficient number of apprenticeship places the SFA must secure is? What is defined as being suitable? How many care leavers over the age of 19 are in apprenticeships at present? Perhaps because those are too easy, I have a couple of supplementary questions. At what point or age are the local authorities to stop having those duties to a care leaver? Finally, does the amendment, more mischievously, not show some of the weaknesses in Government policy in terms of encouraging access dweller apprenticeships?

Stephen Williams: Having heard the Ministers introduction to these amendments, it certainly sounds as if this is something that we would welcome as well. I look forward to hearing the replies to the questions from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. The educational outcome of people who have been in care needs an awful lot of attention by the Government, and any encouragement to get young people who have had a difficult emotional and educational experience into an apprenticeship, would be welcomed.

Jim Knight: We anticipate that the number of care leavers covered by the extension will be relatively small. About 6,000 young people are entitled to leaving care support from local authorities each year, so there are about 30,000 16 to 21-year-olds in touch with the local authority leaving care services per annum, of which no more than 30 per cent. are estimated to be aged 19 to 25. Not all are able or would want to follow an apprenticeship pathway. On the assumption that around 500 care leavers aged 19-plus opted to take an apprenticeship per annum, the annual cost would be in the region of £2 million. That is the basis upon which we made the change of policy, in order to offer the entitlement to this group of relatively vulnerable young adults. The suitability would be the same as for 16 to 18-year-olds. As far as I understand it, we do not collect the information about how many apprentices between the ages of 19 and 25 are care leavers. That is why I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information requested, but I hope that that is sufficient.

John Hayes: I also asked at what point or age the local authority stops owing such duties to care leavers. I shall add a point that I have been cogitating upon as the Minister has been speaking. There are parallels with our earlier discussions about young people in secure accommodation. Continuity of options, in terms of skilling and education, the need to transfer information and the issue about where such people might reside all seem to be relevant. Has the Minister any thoughts on those subjects?

Jim Knight: I have thoughts on all sorts of subjects that I could share with the Committee, but in the interests of efficiency, I will reserve my thoughts on whether we should extend this to young offenders until such time as we might add a suitable amendment.
In response to the hon. Gentlemans question on when the local authority stops owing duties to care leavers, I understand that it is at age 21. When the amendment to the Education and Skills Act 2008 is commenced, it will be up to the age of 25.

Amendment 409 agreed to.

Stephen Williams: I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 83, page 50, line 42, at end insert
(c) whose employer has withdrawn from an apprenticeship agreement after it has been entered into..

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 115, in clause 83, page 51, line 6, at end insert
(2A) Where no suitable employer is available arrangements shall not be made for persons eligible under subsection (1) to begin training or study until such time when arrangements for employment can be made..

Stephen Williams: Clause 83 is a key clause because it places a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding to provide for choice in apprenticeship places for 16 to 18-year-olds. First, the young person is able to nominate at least two choices of sectors into which they wish to enter an apprenticeship. Following our discussions on clause 35, I hope that, after provision of sufficient information, advice and guidance, people will be exercising radically different choices to those that exist at the moment. It is an important duty to make sure that there are enough vehicle maintenance places and apprenticeships for young women who wish to go into them, for instance. They also have the ability to nominate the level at which they seek to enterlevel 2 or advancedand the apprenticeship place should be within a suitable travel-to-work area.
All those matters are challenging in themselves for this new duty, but of course we are discussing the Bill against the background of a recession. One part of the triangular relationship that we have mentioned several times during the debatethe employermay actually be missing. For a layman, that is essential to the characteristics of the definition of an apprentice. Amendment 114 seeks to put in some protection for a young person who has already entered into an apprenticeship agreement but whose employer then fails and goes out of business because of the difficult economic circumstances that we are in at the moment. Would there then be a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding or the NAS to make sure that that young persons interests were protected so that they could continue with their apprenticeship, given that their employer has ceased to be in business?
Amendment 115 largely covers the same area. What if a suitable employer is not available? Suppose someone has chosen a particular sector for which they are well qualifiedthey have received the good advice and guidance that says that they are well qualified to enter into a particular apprenticeshipbut a suitable match cannot be made with an employer within a reasonable travel-to-work distance of their home? How will the choice of that young person then be met? It comes back to previous discussions that we have had on the role of group training associations. Both the amendments seek yet another assurance from the Government Front Benchas we have had in respect of previous clausesthat the Bill will be flexible enough to encourage the setting up of group training arrangements once it is enacted. Particularly when an employer is missing, will college-led group training arrangements be encouraged by the Government, so that at least somebody can commence their formal training requirements of the apprenticeship with the college while a search for a suitable employment match is carried out? That is the broad purpose behind amendment 115. If an employer failed completely and another could not be immediately identified to pick up the formal employment part of the apprenticeship, could the college fulfil that role, albeit temporarily?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman seems to make a lot of sense, as do the amendments. GTAs are particularly important in areas where there is a poor history of training for apprenticeships. They can galvanise the diet for training and the appetite for apprenticeships. I mentioned the different number of apprenticeships across the country and picked on Greenwich, but there is an embarrassment of riches there compared with Hackney or Hammersmith.

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As we discussed on previous clauses, group training arrangements have an important role to play to bring together small employers who may not be able to provide all the support necessary to take on an apprentice by themselves, but several small employers could work together to fulfil the employment aspect of an apprentices training. These amendments deal with the complete absence of a suitable employer, and I am hoping that the Government will confirm that a college-led group training arrangement would be a suitable vehicle for an apprenticeship place, so that the expectations of the apprentice can be met.

Jim Knight: I understand the sentiment behind the amendments. It is only right that an apprentice whose apprenticeship agreement is prematurely brought to an end by an employer for a legitimate business reason, such as redundancy, should be assisted to find an alternative place. We have systems in place through initiatives such as the construction clearing house, and the work of Connexions and training providers, to find redundant apprentices alternative places. That is particularly important given the current economic situation.
We will strengthen those systemsinvolving local authorities, Connexions, training providers, sector skills councils and the National Apprenticeship Serviceto maximise the opportunities for redundant apprentices to find alternative places. The online apprenticeships vacancy matching service has a potentially important role to play. However, an employer may have withdrawn the apprenticeship agreement because of an apprentices poor performance. The hon. Gentlemans amendment is attractive if one assumes that the only reason for the apprentices employment contract to cease would be the employers economic problems. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the other side of the coin and appreciates that there might be a poor performance problem with an apprentice, he will understand why I am going to ask him to withdraw his amendment.
In such an instance we do not consider that the chief executive of Skills Funding should have a duty to find an alternative apprenticeship place. The most effective means of dealing practicably and meaningfully with that situation is through other systems, rather than amending the legislation in the way proposed. Equally, I understand the concern that there may be insufficient employer places to enable every young person who wants one to take up an apprenticeship. However, the way to address that is to implement a range of policies to encourage employers to take on more apprentices, such as reducing bureaucracy, expanding group training associations, and establishing, among a host of other measures, the National Apprenticeship Service, which will have end-to-end responsibility for the programme.

Stephen Williams: On that point about group training associations, we heard several times that the Government intend to encourage the facilitation of group training arrangements. I was looking for the assurance that that encouragement will include college-led group training arrangements?

Jim Knight: I am mulling that particular question over. We specify in clause 85 that an apprenticeship place must involve arrangements for employment and training or study, highlighting the central role of employers in the apprenticeships scheme. Accepting this amendment would undermine employers central role.
College-led group training associations would be an appropriate vehicle. Having reflected, I have now concluded that that is an appropriate arrangement. We recognise that there is a valuable role for programme-led apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeship provision but we are clear that these are not apprenticeships. We announced in World-class Apprenticeships that we would look to revisit the programme-led apprenticeship brand with a view to creating a new name clearly to designate the new reformed route. As such, while understanding the motivation behind this amendment, we do not believe that this is the most effective means of achieving what we all want which is more apprenticeship places. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded by those compelling arguments.

Stephen Williams: I often find the Minister compelling, though not necessarily conclusively persuasive in all circumstances. None the less, the assurance that I wanted from him was that college-led group training arrangements would be part of the encouragement of GTAs which his Department and DIUS are going to undertake once this legislation is passed. I accept that there may be entirely legitimate business reasons for an employer to terminate the employment contract of an under-performing apprentice. That was not the scenario envisaged by my amendments or what I had to say to them. I accept that there would be legitimate reasons other than total business failure for an apprentice place to be withdrawn. As the Minister has given me the assurance that college-led GTAs are to be encouraged by his Department and its sister Department, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

Election for apprenticeship scheme

Amendments made: 410, in clause 84, page 51, line 19, leave out from is to and in line 20 and insert within subsection (1A) or (1B),.

The effect of this amendment (with amendment 411) is to permit a care leaver aged 19 or over who satisfies the apprenticeship scheme requirements, and to whom a local authority in England owes certain duties under the Children Act 1989, to elect for the apprenticeship scheme under clause 84.
411, in clause 84, page 51, line 23, at end insert
(1A) A person within this subsection is one who
(a) is over compulsory school age, and
(b) is aged under 19.
(1B) A person within this subsection is one who is not within subsection (1A) and
(a) is a person aged under 21 towards whom a local authority in England has the duties provided for in section 23C of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (continuing functions in respect of certain formerly looked after children), or
(b) is a person to whom section 23CA of that Act applies, in relation to whom a local authority in England is the responsible local authority (within the meaning of that section)..(Jim Knight.)

The new subsection (1B) inserted by this amendment describes the care leavers who will be eligible to elect for the apprenticeship scheme, by reference to duties owed by local authorities in England under the Children Act 1989.

Clause 84, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

Suitability and availability of apprenticeship places: further provision

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 86, page 52, line 42, after (5) (a), insert
which may align with boundaries defined in sub-regional groupings.
Yet again, Mr. Chope, our changeover is not taking place at quite the point in the Bill that we imagined, so I will be brief. This particular amendment is obviously again looking at boundaries of sub-regional groupings on which we have already had some discussion. Local authorities, in the Bill, will directly fund and commission education which takes place in sixth-form colleges. There will be approximately 43 sub-regional groups of local authorities and they will be commissioning 16 to 19 education and training which takes place in further education colleges, although the funding as, we know, comes directly from the local authority. There is a concern that further education colleges will have to respond to at least two funding bodiesa point that we made the other daytheir local authority and the Skills Funding Agency. An additional division of areas for the purposes of determining suitability of apprenticeship places is potentially going to add to confusion and bureaucracy, where we have splits across the sub-regions and two layers, so we have a horizontal and a vertical split in terms of these different agencies. We believe that in the interests of simplicity divisions made for the purposes of apprenticeships should align with the already determined sub-regional groupings.

Jim Knight: The apprenticeship scheme is a key element of our plans to ensure that an apprenticeship place is made available for every suitably qualified young person who wants one. How we define a reasonable travel area is clearly an important part of the apprenticeship scheme, and one that we are determined to get right. That is why I understand the motivation behind the amendment, and share the view that there needs to be a linkage between these reasonable travel areas and the sub-regional groupings, which are an important part of our 14-19 planning processes.
Our starting point in defining reasonable travel areas has been to use travel-to-work areas as defined by the Office for National Statistics. As apprenticeships involve a relationship with employers it is only right that we use travel-to-work areas as the basis in the first instance. We are mindful, however, of the need to take a practical common-sense approach. The definition of a reasonable travel area needs to be flexible enough to cover a variety of situations. There may be circumstances in which it is entirely appropriate for the reasonable travel areas to align with boundaries defined in local authority sub-regional groupings, which are based on travel-to-learn patterns, but there may also be situations in which reasonable travel areas mean that young people living near the boundaries of a sub-regional grouping can easily travel across those boundaries to take up apprenticeship opportunities. Previously in our debates the hon. Lady talked about Brockenhurst college, which would be on the boundaries of such groupings. Using legislation to link reasonable travel areas with sub-regional groupings might therefore have the unintended consequence of reducing learner choice. For that reason, and as this is an operational matter, there is no need to further specify the detail of how the process will work in legislation, and I encourage the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept that the issue is complex but that is a result of having a number of complexities in the Bill. However, I am very mindful of unintended consequences and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Suspension of scheme

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 207, in clause 89, page 54, line 20, at end insert
(c) and after consultation with representatives of employers and providers from the sector..
I was just reflecting on what Oscar Wilde said about truth. He said that
truth is seldom pure and never simple,
and so it is with the Billit is seldom simple.

Jim Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. I though that I heard you call amendment 207, which appears to be the one listed here. Perhaps it is a printing error in the document I am looking at, but I thought that amendment 207 was in the name of[Interruption.] No, it is not. Fine. I am grateful for that clarification.

Christopher Chope: The right hon. Gentleman has answered his own point of order.

John Hayes: I said that things are never simple, and on cue the Minister jumped up to show that that is the case.
Clause 89 gives the Secretary of State the power to suspend an apprenticeship scheme in a specified geographical area in relation to particular apprenticeship sectors or a particular level for up to two years. That would allow the duty to secure suitable apprenticeship places to be suspended when economic difficulties or other circumstances were so severe that that duty could not be fulfilled. The amendment is designed to ascertain exactly why apprenticeship schemes would have to be suspended in certain areas or certain sectors during economic hardship. It is now clear that the country is moving to a state of significant economic hardship, by any measure. The clause enables the Secretary of State to suspend apprenticeship schemes at such times, and as a result it has many worrying aspects. It is particularly worrying that training and skills education could be discontinued during hardship, when, as many reports have argued, it should be used as an exit route. The recent report by the Institute of Directors makes it clear that during downturns it is important to continue to invest in skills and training. The failure to do so in past recessions has both lengthened and deepened them. It is a particular concern that the clause facilitates that approach.

Christopher Chope: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is addressing the amendment that I called. He seems to be addressing amendment 206, which has not been selected. If I have misinterpreted his comments, I apologise, but I would be grateful if he addressed his remarks to amendment 207.

John Hayes: Even if I thought you were wrong, Mr. Chope, I would not say so, but on this occasion, I think you are right.

Siôn Simon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I will give way to the Under-Secretary in a moment.
I will move on to make the few remarks I intend to make on amendment 207. What a pity amendment 203 was not called, or I would be able to continue my peroration. I will happily give way to the Under-Secretary, who is like a rare birdhe has been an infrequent visitor to the Committee today.

Siôn Simon: I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree with me that things are even more complex than even he realised. I should also like to note that I have been here the whole time in the Committee today.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary has indeed been here the whole time, but he has been an infrequent contributor, as I should have said. He is right that things are always more complex than they seem. So it is with legislation, so it is with amendments.
Amendment 207 suggests that the elements of clause 89 that I have outlined should only be effected after consultation with representatives of employers and providers from the sector. This is another case of us seeking to ensure that employers are fully involved in both the theory and the practice of the Bill. I anticipate, and I will welcome, the Ministers agreement with that sentiment when he rises to say that the Government intend to accept the amendment.

Jim Knight: The last thing I want to do is disappoint the hon. Gentleman yet again by resisting yet another proposed amendment, but I am afraid that I will have to do so. It would introduce a statutory requirement to formally consult
representatives of employers and providers
before the regulations that would suspend an apprenticeship scheme can be laid. I remind him and other members of the Committee that the guidance in the code of practice on consultations is that the period for formal consultation should normally last for at least 12 weeks. Also, any failure to comply with formal consultation requirements could lead to a judicial review challenge to any decision to suspend the apprenticeship scheme, and to the invalidation an order to suspend.

John Hayes: For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister describe the circumstances in which a scheme would be suspended, specifically, not generally?

Jim Knight: The experience in last outbreak of foot and mouth disease was that it entails considerable disruption to certain sectors in rural areas, for example. It might be appropriate in specific sectors in specific geographical areas to suspend a scheme because of the difficulty of access to it.

John Hayes: It occurred to me that the Minister is quick on his feet and rarely puts them in his mouth.

Jim Knight: I have no comment to make about that. I reassure the Committee that the decision to suspend the scheme will not be taken lightly; we would need evidence that it is impossible to fulfil the duty to secure the places. In determining whether the suspension of the scheme is necessary, we will take account of the views of employer and training provider representatives, among others.
However, the amendment would restrict flexibility by imposing an additional and potentially lengthy formal step in the process before a change can be made to suspend a scheme. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

John Hayes: I am persuaded, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. (Ms Butler.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 24 March at half-past Ten oclock.